The Drinking Age. 18 or 21? A new proposal for 19?

[Vorguen]

To quote Crimson King from the tobacco thread, "There was a study that showed people who died from alcohol poisoning were around 19 - 20 because they just entered college, and they were trying to fit in"

Universities are becoming more aware of this and offering (and sometimes even requiring) most of their new students to take alcohol education quickcourses and exams (not graded or having impact on your GPA, but a requirement to register to classes). Hopefully this has even a small positive impact on students coming in to college. I was actually a little bit shocked as to some of the statistics on drinking. Hopefully it sheds some light into some newer college students that are very susceptible to peer pressure.

This leads on to my next point, since that thread has evolved into debating about more than just tobacco in general, and it reminded me of some of my views on alcohol. I'm all for lowering the drinking age to 18. Anyone can agree with me the ridiculousness of being able to go to war and die for your country and not being able to have a drink (to cope? unwind? unstress?). However, if the main reason that alcohol is being kept at 21 is to prevent alcohol from reaching high schools easily, then why not lower the drinking age to 19? It's something I have thought of many times, since the government seems to be adamant about keeping it out of the hands of 18 year olds. (again I stress that explaining why the drinking age should be 18 is overly redundant with what a million people could say in 10 seconds, so this is an alternate solution or compromise I thought of recently).

Bringing the drinking age to 19 would solve a lot more problems with binge drinking and alcohol poisoning in college. There have been many studies done on how young people who drink illegaly tend to binge drink a lot more often than people who do it legally for reasons such as risk factor (they like to do it because it isn't allowed, and abuse it), peer pressure, lack of drinking experience, etc.

Bringing the drinking age to 19 would likely be easier to pass with the government because you could argue changing the age to 19 would still keep alcohol out of high school, while allowing most college students to be able to drink. Keep in mind that most high school students do graduate at the age of 18.

This still proposes many problems like:

- High school students who failed a few years and are 19. However, if with a drinking age of 21 high school (and even middle school) students seem to have alcohol readily available to them anyway, this would likely not cause a dramatic increase in high school alcohol consumption.

- Young adults who graduate from High School and move to college would still not be able to drink for anywhere from a few months to a year, and their first year is considered to be the most stressful. I am no political genius and do not know if this rule or law would be able to be applied successfully, but, would allowing 18 year old college students to drink legally (under supervision or controlled settings) be a good idea to remedy this?


What age do you believe the drinking age should be kept at? Would 19 be too unfair, even more than 21? Should it stay at 21, or should ultimately bringing it down to 18 be the best course of action?

 

[ArcPoint]

I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, because that's when you become an adult. You are then officially relinquished from the grip of your parents, you (should be) responsible enough to live on your own and make your own decisions.

I agree with universities' decisions to make incoming students take alcohol classes, I believe this is an effective way of informing people what is what about alcohol. Alcohol still reaches high school, I mean, it's just a fact of life, whether it's 18 or it's 21, people will still get it, one way or another.

I honestly believe that lowering the age (To 19 or 18) will reduce the binge drinking problem, one of the reasons it's done is because it's illegal.

 

[Vorguen]

I agree, keeping the drinking age at 21 is doing little to stop underage drinking and it is encouraging to drink irresponsibly.

I am trying to explain though, that the government is trying to keep alcohol out of the hands of young people. Dropping the drinking age to 19 would not allow most high school students to buy it legally.

 

[ArcPoint]

While having the age at 21 does little to stop it, I don't think it's encouraging it per se. The fact that it's illegal at a certain age is already sort of an incentive.

I would consider minors "young people" and adults (18 and over) "older people" I mean, once you're an adult, you should have the responsibility of one. Lowering the age to 18 also wouldn't allow most high school students to buy it legally, just some. Though you do have a good point that with the age at 19, you could have nearly no high schoolers legally allowed to legally by alcohol.

 

[Vorguen]

That is my point. Many high schools also have middle school and some even elementary school students in the same school as well. My high school did, and I knew of instances where some 13 or 14 year old kids were getting liquor.

Reducing it to 19 is like a compromise for everyone who wants it at 18. Since the government refuses to lower it to 18 to keep it away from the hands of the very young ones, having it at 19 would prevent high school kids from getting it legaly and once they leave to college they would have access to it. I think the U.S. tends to disregard 18 year olds still in high school as not being adults.

 

[Narukari]

That is my point. Many high schools also have middle school and some even elementary school students in the same school as well. My high school did, and I knew of instances where some 13 or 14 year old kids were getting liquor.

Reducing it to 19 is like a compromise for everyone who wants it at 18. Since the government refuses to lower it to 18 to keep it away from the hands of the very young ones, having it at 19 would prevent high school kids from getting it legaly and once they leave to college they would have access to it. I think the U.S. tends to disregard 18 year olds still in high school as not being adults.

I believe that the legal drinking age should be 18. At 18 you are considered legally responsible for yourself. If you screw up, its on your shoulders and not your parents anymore. Reducing it to 19 would not be a compromise. The reason most people want it at 18 isn't because they want to have a beer sooner. Most teens who want to drink alcoholic beverages will do so before they even turn 16.

Why should that age slot from 18-21 have more laws than someone who is over 21. They should either move the legal drinking age down to 18, or move the age where a person becomes an adult to 21. It makes no sense to set an age where a person is supposed to be able to make their own decisions, and then make a law that says they can't make their own decisions until a later date, whether that's 19 or 21.

From my own college experience, while I have never had an alcoholic drink myself, I can tell you that alcohol will in no way help you in your academic studies. If you go out Friday night with your buddies and have a few beers to loosen up that perfectly fine, but if you start using alcohol to relieve stress that leads you on a dangerous path. You need to learn to deal with stress yourself early on and not rely on mind altering substances to do it for you. Freshman year is the easiest year you will have in college. The real hell doesn't start till you enter pro-school, which is your 3rd-4th year, when you are hit with 4-5 highly technical courses per term.

 

[ArcPoint]

I'm with Narukari, once you're an adult you SHOULD be responsible for yourself. That's the theory anyway.

 

[Vorguen]

Then why isn't the drinking age 18? If everyone feels this way then it should be right? Obviously there is a problem. Lowering it to 19 instead of 18 would be something the government would probably jump into much easier, and it's a step to getting it to where we all (including myself) want it at. 18.

 

[Narukari]

The reason is that 19 is just as arbitrary as 21. You don't become an adult at 19. It would be as ridiculous a number as 21 is. And the members of congress aren't complete idiots. They aren't going to go for reducing the age by 2 years, then another 1 year later. Currently, 21 is much more significant than 18 as far as legal activity goes.

1. You can buy alcohol.
2. You can buy a firearm.
3. You can go to gambling establishments. (casinos)

As far as the law goes, as far as being tried as an adult you are an adult at 18, but as far as social standing goes, you aren't an adult until you turn 21.

The "alcohol would be legal for high school student" isn't much of an argument either. Cigarettes are currently legal for anyone 18 or older, but you are still not allowed to have them in school.

 

[RazeveX]

I can't quite see why any age is "unfair". Drinking, especially in youth culture (which doesn't end by 21, let me tell you), is often dangerous. Even if one drinks responsibly, research suggests that long term damage is done to one's brain.

Research has shown that animals fed alcohol during this critical developmental stage continue to show long-lasting impairment from alcohol as they age.

Just one thing from: http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/AA67/AA67.htm under the heading WHAT ARE THE HEALTH RISKS?

And what's the gain? Impaired motor skills? Slurring speech? I really don't see why such a useless and harmful thing should be made easier to obtain for teenagers.
If they (we) can't enjoy themselves without it, I really pity them.

 

[Vorguen]

Right but the American Constitution is founded on the strong belief of freedom. Are we really free if the government doesn't allow us to consume what we want? What is next, we won't be allowed to drive because car engines expulse harmful toxins that we inhale?

Think about it, it isn't about fun, it is about our rights. In fact, if you must, I don't even drink. I just find there to be much unfairness in placing age restrictions on alcohol consumption for people who are already legally adults.

 

[RazeveX]

That's a fair point; and I used to share the same sentiments.

However, after thinking about it quite a bit, I came to the somewhat reluctant conclusion that kids can't be trusted with their own responsibility. When do we stop being kids? That's a hard question; but I really think that it's better to be safe than sorry.

Recent studies strongly (sorry, don't have an online reference) suggest that teenagers (and younger) have much less ability to assess risks and hazards than that of an adult. The research claims that it is due to a part of the brain that controls risk assessing takes the longest to mature.
If a child is offered a beer, they will usually drink it without thinking about it (if they are thirsty). If an adolescent is offered a beer, they are much more likely to have a "what the hell" attitude, as opposed to the adult, who often considers if they are driving, whether they are in a comfortable situation, how they are getting home, etc.

The problem is, most of us think that we can manage ourselves; that we know what we should and shouldn't do. How many of those people die every year from alcohol abuse? or alcohol induced road accidents?

Most of my friends drink, and if I had the choice between them making my decisions and the government making them, I'd choose the government. You never know, I may wind up in a car with them one day, and...yeah.

You probably cannot tell, but I really do value freedom. Sure, the government is far from perfect. However, being a teenager growing up around the vast majority of my peers making stupid decisions, I really don't see how giving them more reasons to drink is a good idea. I barely trust them with their own lives as it is.

Also, you wrote:

What is next, we won't be allowed to drive because car engines expulse harmful toxins that we inhale?

Although there are other things I could say, a key difference is that cars are a necessity in the logistics of the society we live in, whilst alcohol only does damage (in young drinkers).

Also, the "what is next" argument really backfires for your side. I could say something like "What is next? Children drinking?".

Oh, and just for fun, I should mention that I'm Australian. So our drinking age is 18, and we don't share your constitution. Still, I can debate the subject like anyone else.

 

[Vorguen]

Understandable, your location is irrelevant to the discussion so in that much you are correct. Not everything about alcohol is detrimental and damage causing.

Does red wine protect against heart disease? Maybe. Many studies investigated the benefits of red wine suggested that moderate amount of red wine (one drink a day for women and two drinks a day for men) lowers the risk of heart attack for people in middle age by ~ 30 to 50 percent. It is also suggested that alcohol such as red wine may prevent additional heart attacks if you have already suffered from one. Other studies also indicated that red wine can raise HDL cholesterol (the Good cholesterol) and prevent LDL cholesterol (the Bad cholesterol) from forming. Red wine may help prevent blood clots and reduce the blood vessel damage caused by fat deposits. Indeed, studies showed that people from the Mediterranean region who regularly drank red wine have lower risks of heart disease

What's in Red Wine that are good for heart?

Red wine is a particularly rich source of antioxidants flavonoid phenolics, so many studies to uncover a cause for red wine's effects have focused on its phenolic constituents, particularly resveratrol and the flavonoids. Resveratrol, found in grape skins and seeds, increases HDL cholesterol and prevent blood clotting. Flavonoids, on the other hand, exhibit antioxidant properties helping prevent blood clots and plaques formation in arteries.

source:
http://www.healthcastle.com/redwine-heart.shtml


As for teenagers being completely unable to handle the responsibility of alcohol, that is not entirely true. You are generalizing your arguments. There will be teenagers who can drink perfectly responsibly. In fact in Europe, where almost anyone can get their hands on alcohol, there is hardly a problem with irresponsible drinking. I myself drank at the age of 15 and 16 before I quit permanently, and I always called my parents if I was unfit to drive. I never got in trouble for making a responsible decision. This isn't the case for everyone but every person is different and saying "this group will always do this" is stereotyping.

You seem to think drinking will only cause danger. That is incorrect. What if a teenager has a glass of wine, or even a beer with his friend spending the night at his house? They finish it, go watch a movie, and go to sleep. No harm was done. There will be many teenagers who also don't drink. I see designated drivers all the time when I go out. Not everyone is irresponsible and reckless.

 

[karthik_king]

True but what about the other people who drive while they are not sober. Many car crashes will happen as a direct result of this. Policemen can not stop car crashes they can just punish the driver and HOPE that it does not happen again. It should stay 21 or go down to 20. 19 is streching it but just not 18.

 

[Vorguen]

How does lowering the age encourage drunk driving? People still drive drunk and are underage. Studies show us time and again that underage drinkers usually binge drink. If you lower the age you find more responsible drinking and less pressure. Drunk driving occurs already whether or not the laws are changed. Bringing it down to 20, 19, or 18 would do very little to change that.

 

[RazeveX]

Understandable, your location is irrelevant to the discussion so in that much you are correct. Not everything about alcohol is detrimental and damage causing.

You seem to think drinking will only cause danger. That is incorrect. What if a teenager has a glass of wine, or even a beer with his friend spending the night at his house? They finish it, go watch a movie, and go to sleep. No harm was done.

I had a feeling you'd mention this, as I didn't bother talking about it in my last post.

You're right, there is evidence to show that a glass of red wine is good for you.; but since when is red wine the drink of choice for young adults/teenagers? Common drinks are usually beer, "alcopops", and pre-mixed spirits. I can't think of many situations when these drinks cause more good than harm.

Even then, alcohol still isn't good for maturing brains, according to the reference I posted previously.

...There will be many teenagers who also don't drink. I see designated drivers all the time when I go out. Not everyone is irresponsible and reckless.

As for teenagers being completely unable to handle the responsibility of alcohol, that is not entirely true. You are generalizing your arguments...This isn't the case for everyone but every person is different and saying "this group will always do this" is stereotyping.

If you read my post again, you'll see that I was careful to didn't stereotype or generalize. I used words like "often" or "usually", which is completely true.

I know that plenty of people are very responsible and can handle these types of situations quite well. However, that doesn't make up for the many irresponsible ones who tend to harm themselves or others. Statistics make it very difficult for you to deny that alcohol is linked to the trends in young drivers crashes, in bar brawls, and the like.
The truth is that some people just can't handle themselves effectively; and it's much better to prevent these situations than to make the minority who can control themselves slightly happier.

Also, I feel that I should clarify that when I say "who can control themselves", I don't mean that some people will always be irresponsible and some will always be sensible. No one knows who will be the next victim of an alcohol induced car crash; it could be someone who is widely regarded as "sensible", yet a freak series of occurrences lead to a crash. I can tell you right now that alcohol never helps driving safety, even if its only a small amount, under the legal limit (I know i have slightly focused on road accidents, but that doesn't mean other facets of drinking aren't just as dangerous).

Really, if you had the choice, would you save that innocent couple with their young daughter from that car crash, or make a thousand teenagers slightly happier with alcohol?

My point is that alcohol really does do more damage than good in young adults/teenagers, and it would be a difficult thing to argue otherwise.

 

[ArcPoint]

Are you suggesting we raise the limit to 25 years old? Because until then, generally your frontal lobe isn't developed, so people can't even "fully" rationalize things until 25. So even if it's kept where it's at, it's still a whopping 4 years younger than when your frontal lobe is fully developed!

Even if you're having frontal lobe problems, you still have these two lovely things called parents. The human mind is so amazing, even at the ripe young age of 3 months, you learn that crying will get you what you want. You learn that doing X will yield Y. Early on, we learn the concept of "Disapproved behavior" from our parents via punishment. Parents have a duty to their children to say "If you come home drunk, or if you drive drunk, assuming the alcohol doesn't kill you first, we will." I'm sure kids don't enjoy being punished, so it gives them something to think about when they're making their decision.

The only thing I don't get, is that you're explaining how adolescents are so bad with alcohol in their hands, where countries with lower legal drinking age don't have the same problems we do -- with a higher drinking age. That simply doesn't make sense.

 

[RazeveX]

Are you suggesting we raise the limit to 25 years old? Because until then, generally your frontal lobe isn't developed, so people can't even "fully" rationalize things until 25. So even if it's kept where it's at, it's still a whopping 4 years younger than when your frontal lobe is fully developed!

Even if you're having frontal lobe problems, you still have these two lovely things called parents. The human mind is so amazing, even at the ripe young age of 3 months, you learn that crying will get you what you want. You learn that doing X will yield Y. Early on, we learn the concept of "Disapproved behavior" from our parents via punishment. Parents have a duty to their children to say "If you come home drunk, or if you drive drunk, assuming the alcohol doesn't kill you first, we will." I'm sure kids don't enjoy being punished, so it gives them something to think about when they're making their decision.

You know, honestly, if the world's decisions were up to me, I think that 25 would be a much healthier drinking age. Of course, that would upset people (someone tell me why), so a compromise should be made; and it was suggested to at least keep alcohol out of schools for the most part (19). Why change that? And if you do, why stop there? Why not make it 17? or 16?

Also, you're forgetting one thing; teenagers don't listen to their parents.

The only thing I don't get, is that you're explaining how adolescents are so bad with alcohol in their hands, where countries with lower legal drinking age don't have the same problems we do -- with a higher drinking age. That simply doesn't make sense.

Statements like this always bother me...
A great way for me to refute your point would be for me to tell you now that I live in Australia, where the drinking age is 18, and personally I think that it is worse that it would be at a higher age.
So please, don't tell me countries with lower legal drinking ages don't have those problems. I know first hand that that isn't true.
However, I'm sure plenty of Australians would say it is better, or safer, or whatever than that of other countries.
So we're back to the disagreement we started with.

 

[ArcPoint]

You know, honestly, if the world's decisions were up to me, I think that 25 would be a much healthier drinking age. Of course, that would upset people (someone tell me why), so a compromise should be made; and it was suggested to at least keep alcohol out of schools for the most part (19). Why change that? And if you do, why stop there? Why not make it 17? or 16?

Also, you're forgetting one thing; teenagers don't listen to their parents.

We should draw the line at 18 because that is when you become an adult, that is when you are no longer under the supervision of a parent or guardian. Your parents should have taught you by now what is right and what is wrong, what the consequences are of certain things. Alcohol abuse is no exception.

Regardless of whether or not teenagers listen to their parents, unless they are mentally ********, they know that their parents will punish them for abusing alcohol. Like it or not parents have full control over a teenager's life until said teenager turns 18. That, I feel, should be the line. It is when society says "You're responsible enough to vote, you're responsible enough to look after yourself, you're responsible enough to make the right choices."

Statements like this always bother me...
A great way for me to refute your point would be for me to tell you now that I live in Australia, where the drinking age is 18, and personally I think that it is worse that it would be at a higher age.
So please, don't tell me countries with lower legal drinking ages don't have those problems. I know first hand that that isn't true.
However, I'm sure plenty of Australians would say it is better, or safer, or whatever than that of other countries.
So we're back to the disagreement we started with.

I'm not arguing that countries with lower drinking age don't have these problems, where ever there's humans there seems to be broken laws. Of course countries still have these problems, but turns out there's actually more cases of alcohol abuse in countries with lower drinking ages, so I concede this point ^_^ So basically there was no statistical backing to my previous claim that in other countries the drinking problems are reduced.

Source: http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/hpcd/chp/alcohol/pdf/minimumdrinkingage.pdf

 

[Vorguen]

You know, honestly, if the world's decisions were up to me, I think that 25 would be a much healthier drinking age. Of course, that would upset people (someone tell me why), so a compromise should be made; and it was suggested to at least keep alcohol out of schools for the most part (19). Why change that? And if you do, why stop there? Why not make it 17? or 16?

Also, you're forgetting one thing; teenagers don't listen to their parents.

You keep generalizing and making assumptions. Teenagers don't listen to their parents? I can give you a perfect example. My girlfriend is a Christian, and her parents are very overprotective. Even when they set unreasonable rules and restrictions on her, she follows every single one of their decisions. When I ask her why, she tells me when she has a daughter, it would break her heart if she didn't listen to her. I point this out because your assumptions are not all correct. I live in a hispanic (Mexican) household where we speak spanish and follow all Mexican traditions. Everybody here listens to our parents. Either you live in an area with troubled teenagers, or you don't want to realize that not every teenager is a problem child. Why would it upset someone to make the drinking age 25? There are millions of reasons. Why can the government ask you to die (war or death penalty) yet not let you drink to forget? It is pretty ridiculous. Why not lower it to 16 or 17? Because they are not adults yet. If the government is going to draw the line at an age when children become adults then they need to give them all rights as adults, not just pick and choose as they see fit.

 

[RazeveX]

You keep generalizing and making assumptions.

I thought it was obvious I wasn't speaking literally; of course some teenagers will listen to their parents sometimes. But at that age, a fair amount of teenagers "rebel", and do things no matter what their parent's say. This is, obviously, stereotypical of people in that age group; and it would be a generalization for me to say that ALL people in this age group are like that, which I am not. My recurring point is that even though ALL people may not share a specific trait, it only takes a few to create unwanted situations.

Teenagers don't listen to their parents? I can give you a perfect example. My girlfriend is a Christian, and her parents are very overprotective. Even when they set unreasonable rules and restrictions on her, she follows every single one of their decisions. When I ask her why, she tells me when she has a daughter, it would break her heart if she didn't listen to her. I point this out because your assumptions are not all correct. I live in a hispanic (Mexican) household where we speak spanish and follow all Mexican traditions. Everybody here listens to our parents. Either you live in an area with troubled teenagers, or you don't want to realize that not every teenager is a problem child. Why would it upset someone to make the drinking age 25? There are millions of reasons. Why can the government ask you to die (war or death penalty) yet not let you drink to forget? It is pretty ridiculous. Why not lower it to 16 or 17? Because they are not adults yet. If the government is going to draw the line at an age when children become adults then they need to give them all rights as adults, not just pick and choose as they see fit.

I think it's great that you and your girlfriend listen to your parents. I listen to my parents as well. HOWEVER; I know a lot of people that don't, both where I live and in other places. I don't know if i could find any concrete evidence that could tell you how many adolescents don't listen to their parents.

However, if I tallied up the number of people that I know who I would classify as "not listening to their parents" and the number of people that I know who I would classify as "somewhat listen to their parents" or "do listen to their parents", I am fairly confident that the majority would reside in the first category.
The suggestion that I live in a troubled neighbourhood or live with the wrong people is far from accurate, but I realize that I have no real way of proving this to you.

Why not lower it to 16 or 17? Because they are not adults yet. If the government is going to draw the line at an age when children become adults then they need to give them all rights as adults, not just pick and choose as they see fit.

Why is 18 adulthood? It's just a number that was picked by someone...acting as a government. Why not 21? 25? 8? It's not like there has always been a number that signifies adulthood; as life expectancies and cultures change, we get used to different definitions of adulthood.

Why would it upset someone to make the drinking age 25? There are millions of reasons.

Millions? Really? I'm going to take that literally, just as you did my statement regarding teenagers.

Why can the government ask you to die (war or death penalty) yet not let you drink to forget? It is pretty ridiculous.

I'm against conscription and capital punishment; you tell me.

 

[Vorguen]

Eighteen is a significant age whether or not it was picked "randomly" as you say. Yes, someone who is 17 and 364 days old is just as adept as he is one day later. However, the government did decide that 18 was the age that marked adulthood, yet decided not to give 18 year olds full rights as adults either. Expectancies of adulthood and maturity do change from culture to culture and person to person but that does not change the fact that a person is given all the possible consequences of being an adult in the United States at 18 yet not given all the rights of one.

 

[RazeveX]

Eighteen is a significant age whether or not it was picked "randomly" as you say. Yes, someone who is 17 and 364 days old is just as adept as he is one day later. However, the government did decide that 18 was the age that marked adulthood, yet decided not to give 18 year olds full rights as adults either. Expectancies of adulthood and maturity do change from culture to culture and person to person but that does not change the fact that a person is given all the possible consequences of being an adult in the United States at 18 yet not given all the rights of one.

Ok, so now your argument is completely based on the fact that the government has chosen an age where you become an adult legally. But in reality, all that means is that you should be responsible enough not to commit serious crimes. Legally, adulthood isn't a privilege, it's a responsibility.

The government never promised you that at 18, you would have all of the same rights as an "adult". Should you be allowed into a seniors centre at 18 as well? Why not? Ok, now how does that apply to your original argument?

As far as the government is concerned, 18 is simply an age of responsibility.

 

[Vorguen]

Yet at that age of "responsibility" we are given the titles of adults but not the "rights" of adults.

My original post is stating that one of the major reasons that the government did not want to lower the drinking age to 18 was because it would be much more accessible to younger students and high schools would have easy access to it as well. Having it at 19 would simply be a compromise to lower the drinking age while still keeping it out of high school.

If 18 is simply an age of responsibility then why are we referred to as adults, asked to act like adults, given the consequences of adults, but not treated like adults?

 

[RazeveX]

Yet at that age of "responsibility" we are given the titles of adults but not the "rights" of adults.

My original post is stating that one of the major reasons that the government did not want to lower the drinking age to 18 was because it would be much more accessible to younger students and high schools would have easy access to it as well. Having it at 19 would simply be a compromise to lower the drinking age while still keeping it out of high school.

Yes, but you said that 18 is the age where you become an adult. What happened to that? I thought your whole argument was that 18 is the age we become adults, and should be given the rights of one.

I understand your point. However, loopholes in rules such as legal adulthood should not be held as a strong opposition to health and safety concerns. Don't take this as a claim that 19 year olds drinking is unsafe, as I didn't necessarily claim that. I'm just saying that 21 is a safer age than 19. 19 year olds are not uncommon in high schools; 21 year olds are a different story. Things such as this can be said with fairly widespread acceptance. So the only issue is, why not? What's wrong with 21?

I couldn't really see why 19 year olds need alcohol. The answer I got was something along the lines of "it's not that they need it; it's a violation of their rights".

Yet, I talked about that age signifying responsibility, not rights, even though some may come with it. See below for slightly more detail.

If 18 is simply an age of responsibility then why are we referred to as adults, asked to act like adults, given the consequences of adults, but not treated like adults?

They would be treated like adults; 18 year old adults. How about seniors cards? Should all adults be able to get them? Adult is just a term; one with importance that is chiefly legal and social.

 

[Deleted member]

We're forgetting something here. 18 is still an arbitrary age. I don't know when they considered 18 to be the age of majority. But when they made tha decision, you can be **** sure it was an arbitrary one. Also you could be 17.99 years old and feel the exact same on your 18th birthday. It's stupid.

Kids who want to drink will find a way, no matter what. "Keeping it out of high school" is just lame. There are always ways of getting your drank on.

For the most part, 18 is a fine age. I simply don't know how you guys survive with your 21 bull****. Believe me, I'm 19 now, and making me wait 2 more years to have a beer is just so absurd. I'm a fully capable and functioning adult, and 2 more years isn't going to make me any more or less responsible (and if it does, it won't be so tangible that it makes me understand Lady Liquor better)

 

[Narukari]

I understand your point. However, loopholes in rules such as legal adulthood should not be held as a strong opposition to health and safety concerns. Don't take this as a claim that 19 year olds drinking is unsafe, as I didn't necessarily claim that. I'm just saying that 21 is a safer age than 19. 19 year olds are not uncommon in high schools; 21 year olds are a different story. Things such as this can be said with fairly widespread acceptance. So the only issue is, why not? What's wrong with 21?

Cigarettes are legal at 18. They are not allowed in schools. Why shouldn't we increase the legal age for smoking to 21 also? Then once we do that, why should 18 year old kids be allowed to move out of their parents house?

If they aren't responsible enough to drink, how are they responsible enough to be a homeowner, hold a steady job, and survive in the real world?

I couldn't really see why 19 year olds need alcohol. The answer I got was something along the lines of "it's not that they need it; it's a violation of their rights".

Yet, I talked about that age signifying responsibility, not rights, even though some may come with it. See below for slightly more detail.

Why does anybody NEED to drink alcohol? The government once a long time ago decided that nobody needed to drink alcohol. It resulted in prohibition. This got overturned.

They would be treated like adults; 18 year old adults. How about seniors cards? Should all adults be able to get them? Adult is just a term; one with importance that is chiefly legal and social.

Is there anything significant about being a senior? Some establishments have special deals for them, but all those are voluntary and not forced by the government. There might be other perks, but I don't know as much about becoming a senior, and what it entails.

 

[RazeveX]

We're forgetting something here. 18 is still an arbitrary age. I don't know when they considered 18 to be the age of majority. But when they made tha decision, you can be **** sure it was an arbitrary one. Also you could be 17.99 years old and feel the exact same on your 18th birthday. It's stupid.

So it's ok to drink at 17.99 years old? how about .98?
Continue that to 5 years old and tell me what you think.
They didn't just pick a random number; they put as much thought into it as they could, I'm assuming.

That point is pretty stupid, if you ask me. Numbers and rules have to be set to keep things in line. When you go down to the store and see something for $49.99, do you tell the clerk that the number is stupid and ask him why not $49.98? Tell him it's arbitrary, anyway?

Kids who want to drink will find a way, no matter what. "Keeping it out of high school" is just lame. There are always ways of getting your drank on.

This completely goes against your post on gun control, in which you said something to the effect of "I know gun control wouldn't stop criminals from getting them completely, but it stops a lot of people who would have to travel to mexico to get them." You can have different views on each subject, but it made me curious.

Even if you were completely right, does that mean we should stop trying to prevent them altogether? Criminals keep commiting crimes; should we stop arresting them? High schoolers can get drugs easy on the street; should we stop limiting that as well?

It's prevention. Not foolproof, but better than nothing.

For the most part, 18 is a fine age. I simply don't know how you guys survive with your 21 bull****. Believe me, I'm 19 now, and making me wait 2 more years to have a beer is just so absurd. I'm a fully capable and functioning adult, and 2 more years isn't going to make me any more or less responsible (and if it does, it won't be so tangible that it makes me understand Lady Liquor better)

I am of the belief that we shouldn't be so **** addicted to alcohol that we couldn't wait until 21 for it.

And 2 years will make you more responsible, up until 25, as far as frontal lobe research is concerned. Look at my previous posts for more info.

Cigarettes are legal at 18. They are not allowed in schools. Why shouldn't we increase the legal age for smoking to 21 also?

Fine, ban cigarettes, move the age to 21, whatever.

Then once we do that, why should 18 year old kids be allowed to move out of their parents house?

For one (too tired to list anything beyond that), moving out of your parent's house is yet to show any traces of brain damaging risk. Also, it doesn't seem to make you more likely to do things that you wouldn't do sober.

Why does anybody NEED to drink alcohol? The government once a long time ago decided that nobody needed to drink alcohol. It resulted in prohibition. This got overturned.

That's nice, but you COMPLETELY avoided the question. I am aware of the prohibition on alcohol.

Is there anything significant about being a senior?

I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Some establishments have special deals for them, but all those are voluntary and not forced by the government.

So is alcohol.

There might be other perks, but I don't know as much about becoming a senior, and what it entails.

Nor do i; you don't need to know to understand my point.

My point was that a seniors card is a right that you can only achieve as an older adult. Likewise, alcohol is a right you can obtain as a 21-year old adult.



I'm really tired, sorry if none of this makes sense.

 

[Narukari]

Fine, ban cigarettes, move the age to 21, whatever.

I have constantly said that we should change the age when you are legally an adult to 21, if we decide that you are not responsible enough to make your own decisions at 18. Can you give me any reasoning to why you should be punished as an adult at 18, that is not also a reason why you should be able to drink at 18?

Why should the Australian government keep the alcohol limit at 18? They should also move the limit to 21 there if it is considered that dangerous for people between the ages of 18-21.

For one (too tired to list anything beyond that), moving out of your parent's house is yet to show any traces of brain damaging risk. Also, it doesn't seem to make you more likely to do things that you wouldn't do sober.

One glass of wine a night is said to be healthy for the body.

Moving out of your parents house takes much more responsibility. Many people screw up when getting themselves settled down outside of their home so badly that they end up paying debt for the rest of their lives.

That's nice, but you COMPLETELY avoided the question. I am aware of the prohibition on alcohol.

Your question seemed to be that the law should be the law, because it's the law. Some laws were not made correctly. All of our other laws are pointed towards 18 being the deciding age where you get to make your own choices in life. Only this one area is decided at 21.



I don't think you understood what I was saying.

So is alcohol.

Alcohol is voluntary by the consumer, and is regulated by the government. Senior citizen deals at Wendy's are special deals given by Wendy's to people that are older. The age is dictated by Wendy's. If they decided that their senior citizen deal starts at age 40, nothing would stop them because it's their product they are selling. They could stop giving out the sale if they wanted.

Nor do i; you don't need to know to understand my point.

My point was that a seniors card is a right that you can only achieve as an older adult. Likewise, alcohol is a right you can obtain as a 21-year old adult.

The only legal advantage I find in being a senior citizen is that they are taxed smaller on their retirement fund if they decide to retire at 65+. A tax break is not giving more responsibilities to a person, it's making retiring easier on people who have worked their whole life.

No new responsibilites/rights are given to senior citizens.

 

[mikybee93]

I used to live in Germany, where the drinking age was 16, sort of. If one was above the age of 14 and with their legal guardian they could drink beer, but no wine or hard liquor. And at 16 one could drink any 'non distilled' beverages. I took this to mean no hard liquor, but beer and alcoholic drinks were fine.
I was 14 at the time with a 17 year old sister, so she went out and drank with her friends of course, and it seemed as is every single one of themselves kept the drinking controlled. Nobody got wasted or passed out, etc.
I now live in India where the drinking age is 25, and my 15 year old friends get wasted at house parties.

It's interesting how when something is prohibited we want it, yet when we can have it it's not as desirable.
I'm not saying that we should lower the drinking age to 16, but lowering it a bit seems to help with over consumption of alcohol.


Edit:
Sources- Personal experience and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

 

[Deleted member]

So it's ok to drink at 17.99 years old? how about .98?
Continue that to 5 years old and tell me what you think.
They didn't just pick a random number; they put as much thought into it as they could, I'm assuming.

This is called a slippery slope - 5 and 17.99 are completely different stages of life and responsbility. Two days before my 19th birthday, I went out. Every pub / club let me in and some even gave me birthday drinks on the house. There's no magic epiphany you get when you turn 19, or 21 for that matter.

That point is pretty stupid, if you ask me. Numbers and rules have to be set to keep things in line. When you go down to the store and see something for $49.99, do you tell the clerk that the number is stupid and ask him why not $49.98? Tell him it's arbitrary, anyway?

No, but many times when they give you change they waive the "arbitrary" pennies. Or if you owe $1.02, they'll ask just for the $1.00.

This completely goes against your post on gun control, in which you said something to the effect of "I know gun control wouldn't stop criminals from getting them completely, but it stops a lot of people who would have to travel to mexico to get them." You can have different views on each subject, but it made me curious.

Um, guns and alcohol are completely different. That's why I have different opinions on them. Guns serve no purpose in everyday society.

Even if you were completely right, does that mean we should stop trying to prevent them altogether? Criminals keep commiting crimes; should we stop arresting them? High schoolers can get drugs easy on the street; should we stop limiting that as well?

It's prevention. Not foolproof, but better than nothing.

Agreed, there does needs to be some control. The only problem is with the age - 21 is too high. In fact, on average, 21 is rather medieval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

I am of the belief that we shouldn't be so **** addicted to alcohol that we couldn't wait until 21 for it.

And 2 years will make you more responsible, up until 25, as far as frontal lobe research is concerned. Look at my previous posts for more info.

Okay, but why 21? What makes 21 the magic number? This is why it's silly - there's no real logical reason. If you think we're at our most mature at the ripe ol' age of 25, then why isn't your drinking age 25?

 

[RazeveX]

This is called a slippery slope - 5 and 17.99 are completely different stages of life and responsbility. Two days before my 19th birthday, I went out. Every pub / club let me in and some even gave me birthday drinks on the house. There's no magic epiphany you get when you turn 19, or 21 for that matter.

I know; but my point still stands; you must set a standard, unwavering point of reference. Otherwise, things go something like this:
How about 17.99?
Yeah, there's practically no difference, ok.
Ok. how about 17.98?
Well, I guess that's just the same as 17.99. Ok.

A LONG TIME LATER

how about 5.01?
Yeah, I guess there's no real difference between 5.01 and 5.02.
Alright, how about 5?
Ok. Wait a minute...

Really, where in that chain can you say that one step is different from another? You can't unless you set a POINT OF REFERENCE, making the whole discussion pointless.

Um, guns and alcohol are completely different. That's why I have different opinions on them. Guns serve no purpose in everyday society.

That really makes no sense to me. I mean, if i was pro gun, I could at least say it provides self defence (I won't discuss that now). What good does alcohol amongst youth culture do? What use could it possibly have?

Agreed, there does needs to be some control. The only problem is with the age - 21 is too high. In fact, on average, 21 is rather medieval.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age

My debate arguments are fairly universal to most countries. Anyway, guns (again) are fairly easy to obtain in a number of other countries; should we share that policy?

Okay, but why 21? What makes 21 the magic number? This is why it's silly - there's no real logical reason. If you think we're at our most mature at the ripe ol' age of 25, then why isn't your drinking age 25?

To be perfectly honest, I posted earlier asking what would be wrong with 25. The only answers I received were something to the effect of "There are millions of reasons" and "It's not that we need it, it's our rights".

 

[yummynbeefy]

to be brutally honest it really doesnt matter what the drinking age is its not going to stop people from doing it
their going to get it somehow and kids are going to drink

though i do think its rediculous that your treated as an adult at 18 but still cant drink alcohol

 

[RDK]

Um, guns and alcohol are completely different. That's why I have different opinions on them. Guns serve no purpose in everyday society.

Awesome! Now that I know you have no intention of protecting yourself from armed robbery, I'm gonna come over to your house and take everything you own.

Edit: for all of you comparing the arbitrary nature of the drinking age with something like the price of a market good, just know that your argument is ridiculous. Capitalism ensures that things like prices are arbitrary--but that's the whole point; arbitrary based on whatever the producer deems is necessary. He has the right to; he's selling a product.

The two are in no way comparable.

 

[RazeveX]

Awesome! Now that I know you have no intention of protecting yourself from armed robbery, I'm gonna come over to your house and take everything you own.

Lol.

Edit: for all of you comparing the arbitrary nature of the drinking age with something like the price of a market good, just know that your argument is ridiculous.

That's a nice way of putting it. Let's see, who was making that specific argument...oh, ME! Who else...oh, no one else. So..."all of you" is just me then, I guess.

Capitalism ensures that things like prices are arbitrary--but that's the whole point; arbitrary based on whatever the producer deems is necessary. He has the right to; he's selling a product.

The two are in no way comparable.

I'd hate to rebut the head debate guy...but...I disagree.
(SHOCK! OUT OF THE PROVING GROUNDS! lol)

arbitrary based on whatever the producer deems is necessary. He has the right to; he's selling a product.

Oh, so you mean just like what the government deems necessary? They have the right to, they're running a country? If the answers no, then why pay taxes? Why obey any laws?

The two are in no way comparable.

They are completely comparable. A higher entity (shall we say) is balancing a number of things, such as their own happiness, with other things, such as the happiness of their customers/citizens. This balancing allows them to come up with a number, which they think is best. After all, they have the right to. Anyone could easily argue with their "arbitrary" number, because it directly affects them (customers having to pay prices, citizens having to stay sober).

EVEN IF they are in no way comparable (still disagree), it doesn't disprove my point in anyway (in a previous post).

 

[Narukari]

Oh, so you mean just like what the government deems necessary? They have the right to, they're running a country? If the answers no, then why pay taxes? Why obey any laws?

Just because they make the laws, doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want to. Just because you are capable of making a decision doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to tell you to make the best decision.

We pay taxes because the government protects us, and provides services. It forms an army, builds roads, and other things. The sole purpose of government is not to form laws and punish people who don't follow them. They are not RUNNING the country.

Why obey any laws? Thats up to you, some obey them in fear of punishment, but as long as a law is considered unfair, there will always be people who don't follow the law. The government decides whether those people deserve to be punished, or if the law needs a second look.

They are completely comparable. A higher entity (shall we say) is balancing a number of things, such as their own happiness, with other things, such as the happiness of their customers/citizens. This balancing allows them to come up with a number, which they think is best. After all, they have the right to. Anyone could easily argue with their "arbitrary" number, because it directly affects them (customers having to pay prices, citizens having to stay sober).

Retail stores do not care about customer happiness, and customers do not owe the store anything as well. They balance the price so that the item sells for the most profit. Whether it sells to 1,000 or 100,000 doesn't matter to the store. This analogy does not make any sense.

 

[ArcPoint]

Keep in mind people, that the thing in question is not whether or not you are able to make a rational decision as to whether or not to responsibly drink. Even if person X was 21 years old in the United States, and he had his entire frontal lobe cut out, damaged, or otherwise dysfunctions, he would still be able to drink irresponsibly.

To me, this is a question of when you are deemed responsible enough to be by yourself, to be an adult. And in the United States, this age is 18. You are not deemed responsible enough at 17 years, 365 days and 23 hours, but at 18, you are. 18 has some arbitrary aspects to it, I agree. However, debating whether or not 18 should be the age you are legally an adult is an entirely different subject.

 

[RazeveX]

Just because they make the laws, doesn't mean they are allowed to do whatever they want to. Just because you are capable of making a decision doesn't mean that the government should be allowed to tell you to make the best decision.

To me, setting a safe, considered drinking age doesn't seem like "doing whatever they want to". It is for the benefit of the country. Also, you're forgetting that there are links between alcohol and road accidents. So not only are they a danger to the ones who consume it, it is a danger to others as well. It's completely in the governments power to decide who is old enough to drink.

We pay taxes because the government protects us, and provides services. It forms an army, builds roads, and other things. The sole purpose of government is not to form laws and punish people who don't follow them. They are not RUNNING the country.

To me, that is running the country. All we do is live here, and contribute small bits. Sure, the government doesn't do everything, but with smaller sub systems, but without them we could not "run", so to speak.

Retail stores do not care about customer happiness, and customers do not owe the store anything as well. They balance the price so that the item sells for the most profit. Whether it sells to 1,000 or 100,000 doesn't matter to the store. This analogy does not make any sense.

It makes perfect sense to me; i'll try to explain our misunderstanding, whether I'm right or wrong.

When I said customer happiness, I meant that as a variable used to set prices that are not too outrageous that no one would buy their product. Sure, SOME shop owners may not care particularly much about their customers, but it's probably an insult to say that all shop owners do not care about their customers. Anyway, I digress.

Governments set their laws in the same way; balancing the happiness of their citizens (i feel wierd using that word, but whatever) with their safety. One could also argue that the government doesn't really care about the safety of it's citizens at all; it simply wants to do other things such as increase tourism, world standing, etc.

It's very similar, very comparable as I see it.

Of course, this is all focusing on a small point, but seeing as we kind of covered a lot of ground in the first few pages of this thread, I don't know what else to say.

-RazeveX




P.S: Actually, I have one thing to say.

This issue will never be resolved, whether these things are comparable; we in time will soon forget of the mini debate of whether government laws and shop prices are comparable.

However, no one will remember my initial point; refuting that the number is arbitrary, therefore worthless. No one will acknowledge my rebuttal of one of Delorted's points (why not 17.99?). (not saying I need acknowledgement, try to see where I'm going with this)

The problem with these debates is that we go on small tangents to solve small problems of small arguments relating to the main question, but we never follow them back. We just forget about them, inevitably leading us to nowhere.

Wow, that sounded depressing.

Anyway, debating is awesome




EDIT: To avoid double posting:

You are not deemed responsible enough at 17 years, 365 days and 23 hours, but at 18, you are. 18 has some arbitrary aspects to it, I agree. However, debating whether or not 18 should be the age you are legally an adult is an entirely different subject.

You're telling me. One of the main arguments on the other side (pro-young-drinking?) is that "18 is when you become an adult, and you should get the rights of one, such as drinking".

 

[Deleted member]

No one will acknowledge my rebuttal of one of Delorted's points (why not 17.99?). (not saying I need acknowledgement, try to see where I'm going with this)

....because it was a slippery slope....

 

[Vorguen]

And in the United States, this age is 18. You are not deemed responsible enough at 17 years, 365 days and 23 hours, but at 18, you are.

3 out of every 4 years that statement will mean that you are already 18 years of age. A year has 365 days unless it is Leap Year. 75% of the time someone of 17 years, 365 days, and 23 hours will be considered "responsible enough" to your standards.